the IAEA report does not say Iran has a bomb, nor does it say it is building one, only that its multiyear effort pursuing nuclear technology is sophisticated and broad enough that it could be consistent with building a bomb.

Pexton added that Just Foreign Policy's Robert Naiman "and his Web army were right. The headline and subhead were misleading."

At the Post's editorial page, these facts apparently don't matter. Their editorial today (1/11/12) about Iran sanctions closes with this:

Iran may be feeling some economic pain, and it may be isolated. But its drive for nuclear weapons continues.

How many "Web armies" will it take for the editorial page to get the facts right?

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

You know, hass, I wondered the same thing. Today, in my local paper, a commentary was written by a former national security adviser to none other than Dick Cheney which talked about our "persistent failure to prepare a possible military response to the region's most urgent threat: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons." We were also told of "the specter of Iranian theocrats wielding the world's most dangerous weapons."
So far I haven't read (in this paper) the anti-war viewpoint such as the specter of a Gulf war that would be an absolute catastrophe.

I fail to see the difference between this and the standards of Pravda under the Soviet Union. The facts are arranged to support the regime's desires. Shouldn't journalism be about reporting facts? Shouldn't editorials be about drawing conclusion on the basis of facts? When did it become de rigor for us to lie to support our pre-drawn conclusions and then comment on the lie as though it were true?

So far, no "letters to the editor" of this paper have been printed about a potential conflict. I wrote one, expressing the anti-war view and it was rejected. Yet I see commentaries like the one I mentioned appear in their paper. Apparently, commentaries can have considerable leeway in expressing their view, facts be damned. I wrote a second letter which I will submit today. Anxious to see if that will be rejected too.

The only way to stop this practise is to effect profits,
We could petition advertiser to stop ads until the WaPost corrects inaccuracies, publishing the truth and letters to the editor which point out inaccuracies or face boycott of their products.
Take out an ad in the paper informing readers, subscribers & advertisers that news, commentary & letters to the editor concerning Iran contain lies, misrepresentations and fabrication of facts. That if reports that could lead the nation to attack, invade & occupy another sovereign nation are based on inaccurate information than how can we trust the validity of anything else printed.

Wow talk about semantics.When did we become a people that draws back from saying it like it is.What idiot…what country….what person -believes Iran is NOT trying to build a bomb,and is willing to go on record and say so.Well here is your platform.Even on these "defeat retreat and surrender" blog sights I am hearing a grudging acknowledgement -paired with a general sentiment that they have the same right as everybody else to have one.

"what person -believes [Iraq] is NOT trying to build a bomb,and is willing to go on record and say so."

The people who were right. Most likely the same in this case as well. Though perhaps the constant and openly discussed threat of attacking Iran may cause them to decide to develop a nuclear weapon. Then you get to say "I told you so!" and pat yourself on the back.

Does Iran have a right to enrich uranium under the NPT? Yes (NPT- article IV, part 1) . Is there any solid evidence that Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear weapon? No.

Does Iran have a right to a nuclear weapon as the "defeat, retreat and surrender" blogs seem to believe (in right wing terminology I assume that's a colorful labelling for unnamed liberal blogs).?

That's an interesting question. According to the NPT, which they are a signatory to, the answer is no. However, considering the complete ignoring of the provisions of the NPT which call on nuclear states to disarm and their complete and total unwillingness to even pretend that they are attempting to fulfill article VI of the NPT (hey, it's only been 42 years maybe next year they'll start really trying) I could see how some states might view the agreement as nothing more than the nuke club trying to keep it all really exclusive and view the whole thing as null and void.

After all, if the nuclear states don't feel compelled to even put on a show of fulfilling their obligations under article VI (this may shock you but sticking nuclear weapons in a warehouse is not the same disarmament as the US government seems to believe) why should the non-nuclear states remain in compliance?

Dishonest governments, right wing gut instincts or evidence. Which to trust? Well if the Iraq invasion taught me anything I'll throw my lot in with dishonest governments and right wing gut instincts. How can that steer me wrong?

Brent Im not going to argue nuclear madness from Oppenheimer on with you.Or that after Iraq -you view our intel community as useless as tits on a bull,and would just as well have them disbanded.Im simply going to ask you this.Do you take Iranian threats seriously?And have you kept track of those threats?If your answers are no,and yes, then you have some right to feel secure with a nuclear Iran.If not……..you are missing a huge part of the equation.Please never expect Obama or whomever holds the office to be as unprepared.

@ michael e: Our intel service is useless and we might as well disband it, IF our leaders are not gonna listen to what they're telling us. They didn't listen to it before the Iraq war, when they were saying Iraq was not a WMD threat. No, the administration marginalized those voices, mined data, and emphsized sketchy and unreliable intel that fit its preconceptions. If you're gonna rely on stuff like "a little bird told me that such-and-such country has WMD's" then you might as well save a few gazillion bucks and not have a CIA, NSA, etc.

I don't take Iran's threats against the US seriously. Neither should you. They can do nothing to us militarily as long as we don't go invading it. Sure they can touch us with terrorism, but so can any deranged loner, so what's the real threat? They certainly are a threat to Israel. But last I checked, the vast majority of US citizens don't live in Israel.

So you've become a free-lance Iran-intelligence analyst in your spare time from being a docotr, huh? How 'bout you let the pros at the CIA, et al., worry about tracking Iranian threats and you stick with medicine? But what shouldn't be happening is the media continually repeating that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons when nobody– either within or outside of the govt.– can find any good evidence of that. It contributes nothing to our security to do so.

John what can I say but i disagree with everything you just wrote.Do you take Iran's threats seriously?Yes or no?if you think their daily threats are a lie….then ok you see them as stone cold liars, and your not worried about that.Our president, and security forces will not be afforded your brand of leniency.You are setting up a funny dangerous game where any way the ball falls is A ok with you.. You'll say Iran is not looking for the bomb. Than If they do get it …..it is only because we forced them to do it. Finally….And anyway why shouldn't they have it?Oh yeah and fuck Israel.John I am not a free lance intel guy.Are you an American?